DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7, 10, 16, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in line 2 of claim 1, “a” should be inserted before resin.
Regarding claim 10, in line 2 of claim 10, “groups” should be singular.
Regarding claim 16, in line 2 of claim 16, “polyamines” should be singular.
Regarding claim 17, in line 2 of claim 17, “anhydrides” should be singular.
Regarding claims 2-7, these claims depend from an objected to claim and include all of the limitations thereof. Therefore, they are also subject to the objection.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 states that the stabilizing compound is “triphenyl phosphite, 4-methoxy-1-naphthol.” It is not clear if the stabilizing compound is one of the two compounds or if it is meant to be a combination of the two compounds. For the purpose of further examination, this claim will be interpreted as the stabilizing compound being either triphenyl phosphite or 4-methoxy-1-naphthol.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites that the volatile dilutant is added in between one percent and 10 percent. However, it is not clear on what this percentage is based. For the purpose of further examination, the percentage range will be interpreted as being by weight of the coating.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schroeter et al. (US 4,076,489).
Regarding claims 1-4, Schroeter et al. teaches a coating composition comprising a thiol-ene resin which is a mixture of a polythiol and diallyl phthalate (Col. 3, lines 50-66) together with an effective amount of a photoinitiator (Col. 4, lines 25-35). The composition is cured with ultraviolet radiation (Col. 1, lines 10-16).
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bowman et al. (US 2021/002469).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5, Bowman et al. teaches a composition comprising a thiol-ene polymer comprising ethoxylated bisphenol-A dimethacrylate (¶36-37) as an ene monomer, along with other monomers (¶40-41); and a photoinitiator that is activated upon exposure to UV light (¶42). The polymer composition may be used as a coating (¶5).
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Onishi (US 2021/0206922).
Regarding claim 1, Onishi teaches a thiol-ene curable composition comprising a compound (A) having an isocyanuric skeleton and at least two mercapto groups in one molecule, and at least one of a compound (B) including diallyl maleate and diallyl fumarate (¶13) (resin capable of thiol-ene polymerization). The composition also comprises 0.01 to 10% by weight of a polymerization initiator (¶13). Additionally, the composition is used as a coating (¶101-102).
Regarding claim 2, Onishi teaches that the initiator is a photopolymerization initiator that is sensitive to irradiated active energy rays, such as ultraviolet rays (¶45).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Onishi teaches that the composition may contain a polymerization inhibitor such as 4-methoxy-1-naphthol (¶80-81).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chernyshov (US 2020/0347178).
Regarding claims 8-11, Chernyshov teaches a clearcoat composition comprising a silane modified urethane acrylate (reactive acrylic elastomer with silyl and acrylate functional groups) with a UV-photoinitiator (initiator allows for polymerization by UV light), flow and leveling additives, catalyst and reactive diluent (¶268). This mixture is stirred meaning that the components are liquid (¶268).
Claims 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koenig et al. (US 4,661,568).
Regarding claims 12, 14, and 15, Koenig et al. teaches a composition, used as a varnish (coating) (Col. 2, lines 25-30) comprising an epoxy resin, a hardener, an organic solvent and, optionally, an accelerator and other standard adjuncts (Col. 1, lines 60-65). The first part of the composition comprises the epoxy resin and the second part is the hardener (two-part system). The composition can comprise an accelerator such as 2-methyl imidazole (an imidazole and an amine) (Col. 7, lines 15-50). The accelerator can be stored in the second part of the epoxy system. The composition also contains a volatile reaction diluent that is used as the solvent for the epoxy resin composition (Col. 6, lines 25-35).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Geeck (US 4,391,855).
Regarding claims 18-20, Geeck teaches a coating composition comprising a primary corrosion inhibitor dispersed in a linear epoxy resin bonding material and a vehicle of active and inactive solvents (Col. 1, line 65 to Col. 2, line 3). The preferred bonding material is a thermoplastic linear epoxy resin (Col. 2, lines 41-42) and the solvent is methyl ethyl ketone (Col. 4, lines 11-15).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig et al. (US 4,661,568) as applied to claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 13, Koenig et al. teaches the composition of claim 12 as set forth above. Koenig et al. does not teach that the composition comprises from 1 to 10% by weight of the volatile diluent. However, Koenig et al. teaches that the amount of solvent contained in the epoxy resin composition will vary depending on a variety of factors including the particularly employed components such as epoxy resin, hardener and solvent and the desired properties of the epoxy resin composition, e.g. the viscosity and the pick-up thereof by the reinforcing web (Col. 3, line 65 to Col. 4, line 2). At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the amount of volatile diluent in the composition of Koenig et al. to an amount of 1 to 10% by weight through routine experimentation, and would have been motivated to do so in order to tailor the composition for the desired properties of the end uses.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig et al. (US 4,661,568) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of El Kudsi (EP 2765148). For convenience, the citations below are taken from an English language machine translation included herewith.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Koenig et al. teaches the composition of claim 12 as set forth above. Koenig et al. does not teach that the composition comprises a polyamine or an anhydride in the second part of the epoxy system. However, El Kudsi teaches an epoxy resin-based coating (¶1) comprising an epoxy resin component and a curing agent component (¶12) wherein the curing agent component comprises curing agents such as carboxylic anhydrides or diamines (polyamines) (¶15-18). Koenig et al. and El Kudsi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of epoxy resin coatings. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use an anhydride or a polyamine, as taught by El Kudsi, as a curing agent in the composition, as taught by Koenig et al., and would have been motivated to do so because El Kudsi teaches that these compounds are suitable curing agents for epoxy compositions used as coatings.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA C SCOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANGELA C SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights